It found that M/s NIPL was the registered person and that M/s NIPL was the entity alleged to have fraudulently availed the ITC. Since M/s NIPL had not been arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the petitioner was held to be not maintainable. The complaint, without arraigning M/s NIPL, the entity that allegedly availed the wrongful ITC, as an accused, was not maintainable. The poser for determination is whether petitioner, who is a Director of M/s NIPL, can be prosecuted individually without impleading the company M/s NIPL as an accused. In the absence of M/s NIPL, being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against petitioner, a Director of the Company would not be maintainable.